Australia's Internet content filter seems to be somewhat on track (and that's not a good thing - it isn't a track we should be on) although the direction of the track building seems to be a little vague. Lately we've seen the classification system extended to online games and other content that the government (particularly Senator Conroy) denied it was ever going to cover. Additionally, we've had some family-type groups come out in opposition to the filter. Curious stuff.

Of more interest to me is the technical aspect. I've said before that it isn't possible without significant problems but I may not be entirely correct.

I've been reading the technical details of how the proposed NZ Internet filter will work. Of interest is how the government there has just dropped it on the unsuspecting population as well...

Anyway, the way they've chosen to implement it is quite clever and if done correctly (so there is lots of room to move there) should avoid most of the performance issues that would normally be associated with this sort of filtering scheme.

However, it still has all the standard administrative problems attached.Who will choose what is offensive? How does content get on or off the list? How does someone know if something is on the list? And so on. Most of these are covered in the FAQ.

Two things that stick out to me straight away. First, if you attempt to access a banned site (innocently or otherwise) what is done with that information? And second, there are still several ways in which the filtering system can be bypassed by someone in the know. And that will certainly be the most of the "children" that the government is trying to protect and the people who have a vested interest in not being caught (i.e. the people involved in child porn, etc.).

One can only hope that that Australian version of this (if it ever comes about) combines the best features of the NZ system but more open when it comes to the administrative side. But, knowing politics in this country, we'll get a system that will be much worse.